September is back to school month, but the next big test for the White House and EPA has already begun. How the Obama administration handles the proposed regulation of coal ash - the toxic waste left over from coal-burning power plants loaded with mercury, lead, and arsenic - will serve as a key indicator of the administration’s sincerity in responding to one of the worst energy and environmental crises threatening the health and water supplies of millions of Americans.

The failure of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s massive coal slurry containment pond near its Kingston coal plant gushed more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash into nearby streams, destroyed three homes and continues to endanger the water supplies and health of nearby residents.

Meanwhile, a rural town in Perry County, Alabama is receiving the toxic leftovers from the spill by the train full. Uniontown, Alabama is host to the bankrupt Arrowhead landfill where the coal ash “spilled” into the Emory River is being buried. Thirty percent of residents in Perry County - which is majority African American - live below the poverty line, another prime example of environmental injustice in the South.

In contrast, residents of Denver, Colorado will enjoy a hearing in their home town, even though there isn’t a single coal ash damage case in the state of Colorado, according to the “In Harm’s Way” report released last week by the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club and Earthjustice.

Here is a little visual reminder for the EPA about what Tennessee residents experienced in the wake of the TVA disaster:

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.